Despite clear rulings from the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Tribunal affirming that Dariusz Barski is the legitimate National Prosecutor, Judge Anna Ptaszek — a member of the Iustitia association and the judge who ordered Zbigniew Ziobro to be brought before the Sroka Commission — upheld the decision to drop the investigation into the events surrounding the takeover of the National Prosecutor’s Office by allies of Justice Minister Adam Bodnar. What’s more, in the justification of her ruling, she not only challenged the authority of Poland’s top legal institutions but also allowed herself to make scathing and controversial remarks. “The reasoning is so absurd that the Court will refrain from offering a more pointed comment,” Ptaszek wrote.
We have reported extensively on the events of January 2024 — when the National Prosecutor’s Office came under attack. This included the illegal dismissal of its head, Dariusz Barski; the appointment of Jacek Bilewicz to a non-existent position; and a subsequent domino effect, with purges led by Bodnar’s team and the appointment of Dariusz Korneluk through a highly controversial “competition.”
“There is no doubt that all actions taken by prosecutors Jacek Bilewicz and Dariusz Korneluk, following my unlawful removal from office, are legally flawed,” Barski told niezalezna.pl.
Predictable Dismissal
The investigation into the actions of the current government within the National Prosecutor’s Office was taken over — ironically — by the same institution. The outcome was predictable: the case was dismissed. That dismissal was appealed. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issued a resolution confirming Barski’s legitimacy as National Prosecutor — a view echoed by the Constitutional Tribunal.
Eventually, the Warsaw District Court, which received the appeal against the dismissal, also weighed in. Although the ruling was issued in mid-April, the National Prosecutor’s Office only publicly acknowledged it last Friday, publishing the ruling and its justification — a surprising and revealing document.
The decision to reject the appeal was made by Judge Anna Ptaszek, a figure familiar to readers of niezalezna.pl for her order compelling Ziobro’s police escort to a parliamentary committee.
Ptaszek, a district court judge, used her justification to critique the actions of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Tribunal, and leading legal scholars, while also making unfiltered, biting comments.
A Judge Turned Commentator
On page 26 of the decision, the judge writes:
“Referring to resolution I Kz 3/24 of September 27, 2024, cited by the complainant, the District Court notes it was issued by a panel consisting of Zbigniew Kapiński, Igor Zgoliński, and Marek Siwek — individuals appointed to the Supreme Court based on recommendations from the body restructured by the December 8, 2017 amendment to the National Council of the Judiciary. The District Court is aware that at least one of them (Marek Siwek) failed the impartiality and independence test. Therefore, this panel’s legal standing is questionable. Numerous rulings from domestic courts and international tribunals — widely known and not necessary to cite here — indicate that this may not constitute a ‘court’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, this resolution may not carry the weight of a legally valid judgment.”
Judge Ptaszek also dismissed the complainants’ legal arguments regarding the interpretation of a specific provision of the Penal Code, calling their reasoning “so absurd that the Court will refrain from a more explicit comment.” She added that the legal analysis — “disappointingly signed by four lawyers, including a PhD and a habilitated doctor of law with notable academic achievements” — was deeply flawed.
A Remarkable Attack on the Constitutional Tribunal
Judge Ptaszek also made striking comments about the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling:
“The presiding judge was Krystyna Pawłowicz, with Stanisław Piotrowicz as member and rapporteur — both former MPs from the Law and Justice (PiS) party who contributed to the very legislation they were assessing as judges. The remaining panel members were Zbigniew Jędrzejewski, Julia Przyłębska, and Bartłomiej Sochański.”
She further noted that the ruling has yet to be officially published, and therefore, under the Constitution, has neither binding force nor finality — a delay resulting from a political decision by the December 13 coalition.
Bodnar Held Responsible
“The fact that Adam Bodnar may have consulted others or discussed the matter is irrelevant. Ultimately, he bears responsibility for the decisions made,” Judge Ptaszek stated. “The claims presented by the complainant and his attorney are too vague and general to be considered. It is notable that the prosecutor interviewed only individuals who share the complainant’s legal perspective,” she concluded.